Talk:Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran

Recent lede reverts

We should retain at least some aspects of the long-standing lede. Also, attempts to hide all doubt and disagreement about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn is not inline with WP:NPOV nor with modern scholarship. Recent scholarly works still refer to Dhu al-Qarnayn as a "mysterious character", which is only "identified with Alexander". An example from 2016,

... exegetic activity revolving around the the mysterious character of Dhū al-Qarnayn (“The Two-Horned”), mentioned in a Qurʾanic sūra (Q 18: 83–97). According to one interpretation, ultimately accepted as authoritative, Dhū al-Qarnayn is identified with Alexander the Greek -- l-Iskandar al-Rūmī -- ... ([1], p. 211, Brill)

In other words, we must capture how reliable sources introduce and summarize the subject. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring to add the weasel word "some" at the lead has to stop, per WP:OR and WP:WEASELWORDS. I removed it yet again and I expect discussion, not reverts per WP:BRD. Also, avoid sloppy accusations that anyone is trying to "hide" anything. This is just nonsense and it violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. All I am trying to do is remove the weasel word. Dr. K. 06:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please look at the history of the article before accusing anyone of edit warring. The long-standing lede (since late 2012) always presented doubt in the first sentence. Here is the version that was stable for many years before Pico's edit warring: [2], notice the use of "may be". The same applies for deleting the second paragraph, which is also found in the stable version. Since you claim to be familiar with policies, you should also know that the article must fairly reflect other views to not end up as a WP:CFORK. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The deleted para

This is the deleted para:

Traditional and modern scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great, but others disagreed. A few early Muslim scholars saw it as a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia. It has also been a matter of theological controversy amongst Muslim scholars since early times. In more recent times, some Muslim scholars have suggested other alternatives, for example that Dhul-Qarnayn may be Cyrus the Great instead of Alexander the Great. There have been many different cultural depictions of Alexander the Great since antiquity. Similarities between the Quran and the Alexander romance were also identified in recent research based on the translation of certain medieval Syriac manuscripts.

This is why it doesn't belong in the lead:

• The article is titled Alexander the Great in the Quran. It should be about the reasons that led scholars to identify AG with certain passages in the Quran. It is not about why these ideas are totally mistaken.
• "Traditional and modern scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great.." No they haven't - that's not what "endorsed" means. What they've done is identified DQ as AG. This is the scholarly consensus, and there are plenty of sources - Wheeler for one.
• "...but others disagreed." Sure, and some have disagreed with the idea that the Earth is round. Our job is to (a) find where the weight of scholarly opinion lies, and then (b) represent all significant opinions,signifying their importance. So far as I can tell, the weight of opinion behind AG=DQ is so great that anything else is fringe (notably the idea that DQ is "really" Cyrus the Great).
• ...followed by two sources, one of them dating from 1927 (really?) and the other, so far as I can tell, not disagreeing with the DQ=AG consensus (if I'm wrong please provide a quote - and the author of the second one, an article titled "A Hero Without Borders: Alexander the Great in the Medieval Persian Tradition", is Faustina C.W. Doufikar-Aerts, not Julia Rubanovich).
• "In an attempt to settle chronological discrepancies, medieval exegetes and historians suggested the existence of two Dhū al-Qarnayns: Dhū al-Qarnayn al-Akbar (the elder Dhū al-Qarnayn) and Dhū al-Qarnayn al-Aṣghar (the younger Dhū al-Qarnayn). The former is the one mentioned in the Qurʾān; he lived after the Prophet Ṣāliḥ and before the Prophet Ibrāhīm (Abraham) and is famous for erecting the Wall against Gog and Magog. The latter is identified with Iskandar-i Rūmī, who conquered Iran and whose counsellor was Aristotle." This quote is irrelevant - chronological discrepancies? Where does the DQ story in the Quran give any chronological information? A real wall against a real Gog and Magog? A real Abraham? All very well for medieval exegetes, but in terms of modern scholarship it's lunacy.
• "It has also been a matter of theological controversy amongst Muslim scholars since early times. In more recent times, some Muslim scholars have suggested other alternatives, for example that Dhul-Qarnayn may be Cyrus the Great instead of Alexander the Great." We're not interested in theology. Nor in Persian nationalism.
• "There have been many different cultural depictions of Alexander the Great since antiquity. Similarities between the Quran and the Alexander romance were also identified in recent research based on the translation of certain medieval Syriac manuscripts. This is close to meaningless.

So, the article, and the lead, have to focus on the ties between Alexander the Great and the stories in the Quran, and they have to avoid theological speculation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your comments sound persuasive to me. I agree. Dr. K. 09:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The lede shouldn't ignore other views per WP:NPOV. While you assert that the scholarly consensus equates Dhu al-Qarnayn with Alexander, Brill's latest collection describes Dhu al-Qarnayn as a "mysterious character".[3] Clearly the link between the two is a matter of interpretation. Otherwise, we need sources that explicitly refer to the scholarly consensus, not your original research. Also, where did Wheeler claim anything about it? (quote him please) I doubt that a scholarly consensus will emerge, since recent scholarship moved on to the development of individual motifs, not the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn. The identify issue remains an old debate largely dominated by medieval historians and 19th-century orientalists (which is why I believe the widely-cited Anderson's paper is informative here). We can't label any of these views "fringe", as reliable sources still refer to them even in short articles. And a minor correction to what you said above: A Hero Without Borders is the title of multiple chapters in an edited collection. The article I correctly cited and linked is ch.8 by Julia Rubanovich ("Persian Tradition"), not ch.7 by Doufikar-Aerts. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I am not someone familiar with the scholarship on the topic but I've reverted the edit again because of it's horribly non-encyclopedic language. "See my expose" for example - this is Wikipedia, not a blog.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi], you talk about "attempts to hide all doubt and disagreement about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn", but this isn't about the identity of a fictional character, it's about how this story got into the Quran. The unanimous view among scholars is that Qarnayn is to be identified with Alexander, but obviously not with the historical Alexander, who built no walls and never reached the ends of the Earth - he's fictional. I get the impression that you think Allah dictated the story to Mohammed and that therefore it cannot have entered the Quran from a merely human source. We have two editors Wallingford and DrK, telling you to leave this alone, and yet you persist. PiCo (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no evidence that the Syriac Legend existed in the milieu of the Quran, hence whether it entered or not is still a matter of historical speculation. Moreover, the disputes about the dating of the Syriac Legend (reaching centuries after the Quran) and its late manuscript tradition isn't helping. Some have suggested alternative sources, like Arabic or Hebrew oral accounts. Incidentally, the academics who accept the Cyrus or Sa'b accounts also have textual and archeological evidence supporting their views. Now since you keep asking for my personal views, I wouldn't mind adding Alexander to the list of pre-Islamic figures mentioned in the Quran. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾, "[t]he lede shouldn't ignore other views per WP:NPOV". The older version was much better.

• "It should be about the reasons that led scholars to identify AG with certain passages in the Quran. It is not about why these ideas are totally mistaken." — Since the same user references the flat Earth theory, I'll ask why such a method wasn't applied to the article Flat Earth, which includes the sentence: "Despite the scientific fact of Earth's sphericity, pseudoscientific flat Earth conspiracy theories are espoused..."? According to the user's logic, this should also be removed. Additionally, Dhu-al-Qarnayn's identity is a much more controversial topic than the Earth's shape.
• "... This is the scholarly consensus, and there are plenty of sources... Sure, and some have disagreed with the idea that the Earth is round..." — I have read literally a dozen modern commentaries which reject this idea, three of which were included in a previous revision.
• "We're not interested in ... Persian nationalism." — Except that the Cyrus the Great as Dhul-Qarnayn theory was first proposed and researched by the Indian scholar Abul Kalam Azad as referenced by Iran's Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi in his commentary.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This is for UncleKasra, who left this message on my personal talk page - as it concerns article content it's more appropriately placed here: Hi. You have repeatedly reverted one of my edits to the intro of the article without any explanation. The problem with the intro is that it's almost entirely taken from one scholar's point of view, but presented as fact and as the result of scholarly consensus. I'm just trying to make sure that is clarified, and I've added a sentence to unpack how theistic and non-theistic views of the Qur'an's origins can clash. One can't just provide one point of view and expect the footnotes to clarify that. The sentence structure itself should be clear. I didn't want to start edit-warring, but this has to be resolved here instead of reverted without any explanation.

First, regarding the charge that I reverted edits without any explanation, I quite clearly (or I hope clearly) said in the edit summary that I was reverting because the source used was not reliable - it's an online website, but for academic articles the reliable sources are books and articles by qualified academics.

Reliable sources such as Wheeler do underlie that web-article and can be considered, but even if you had quoted Wheeler I would have reverted, because Wheeler does not support the argument you wish to make. That argument (or point), as I understand, is that Wheeler supports the idea that Allah revealed the Quran to Mohammad. He does not. Nowhere in any of his books and articles does he say this, and you're welcome to look (I'll provide links to some of his works in a moment).

You also say that the current statement in the article to the effect that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn entered the Quran through the legendary material that grew up around Alexander the Great is not the scholarly consensus. It is. I've looked at a great many books by scholars on this subject, and every one of them says either that the Dhul-Qarnayn story is based on the ALexander legends, or that Dhul-Qarnayn is most often taken to be Alexander (which implies reliance on the Alexander legends). Wheeler is one of these.

If you can produce one or more reliable sources (meaning scholars, and fairly recent ones) who say that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn came to the Quran by divine revelation, or that it is not based on ALexander, I'll reconsider.PiCo (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Origins of the Quranic story of Dhul Qarnayn

I recently reverted this edit by Mikka85 with the explanation that he had misunderstood his sources:
However according to recent studies the current forms and manuscripts of the syriac- and greek recensions of the Alexander Legend, mentioning Gog & Magog including the Gate, suggest, that these do not "qualify as a direct source for the Quran"

Mikka85's first source is Stephen Gero's paper "The Legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian Orient", with two quotes cited:

• "the work (Alexander Legend neshana) also does not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran [...] recent investigations indicate an ex eventu knowledge of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in A.D. 629" (page 7)
• "In particular he [Dhul Qarnayn] is described there as shutting in the tribes of Yajuj wa- Majuj, the biblical Gog and Magog, by means of an iron gate or dam until the end of time, when they shall burst out of their captivity. Now, this episode is not found in the oldest form of the Greek Alexander romance; it was only interpolated, as we shall presently see, into later Byzantine medieval recensions of the text from elsewhere; that is, the Alexander romance stricte dictu cannot be considered as a source of the Koranic narrative." (page 6)
  

It's vital to note that Gero says: "It is well known that Alexander appears in the Koran (Sura 18) under the name of Dhu'l-Qarnain, the hero with the two horns" (page 6 - please use the page numbers on the pdf file, not those that appear in the browser counter). In other words, Gero is saying that Alexander came into the Quran through sources other than the oldest form of the Greek Aexander romance (the second quote) or the work called the Alexander Legend "neshana". This does not invalidate our article statement: "The story of Dhul-Qarnayn has its origins in legends of Alexander the Great current in the Middle East in the early years of the Christian era ... [which] ... went through much further elaboration in subsequent centuries before eventually finding its way into the Quran through a Syrian version."

Mikka85's second source is a book by Brannon Wheeler, "Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis", page 19. Wheeler's book, as the title indicates, is about the development of the figure of Moses in later Muslim commentary. The page Mikka indicates has a chart at the top of the page showing his theory of the sources of the Muslim commentaries, one of them being the Quran, but he makes clear that he's talking about the emergence of the commentaries, not of the Quran (see the highlighted text, "This "full" version of the story seems to emerge as the dominant explanation of Q 18:60-101 in Muslim exegesis as early as the eleventh century" - my bolds.)

For these reasons I reverted the edit to the introduction. There's another edit further down that I haven't looked at, but frankly I'm dubious of Mikka's ability to read academic texts thoroughly.PiCo (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Copying the text from my talk page: "What? No I'm not using different accounts. Mate really, with respect, Wheeler ibid p 19 supports exactly this, just look at the proposed theory (the simplistic drawing). He is stating that Q83-101 may very well developed differently then initially anticipated. Needless to say Gerö verifies the eclatant weekness in Nöldeke's "Pahlavi-origin"-theory by his own findings: The Gog & Magog-apocalyptic narrative interpolation in late byzantine recension, but absent in early recensios. I don't want to brag about this but this belongs in there mate, really. This comes from someone who, not counting ottoman-turkic literature, studies this. Entire paassages in Gerös work (esp. p.4-5 Memra and Neshana on Alexander and the Alexander romances comparison with Q83-101) are dedicated to this. It literally supports a new approach to the causa, which Wheeler further elaborates. I'm asking again, why was it reverted? I don't care for apologetic scholars or their approach, if this is what you fear (judging on what I saw on your talk page). What I care for are facts. And when these facts are there, they should be mentioned, otherwise the objectivity goes down the hill. By the way you even deleted the Rabbi Levi editation. This hole section esp. the Khidr-narrative uses quotes and sources from the 19th century, and some of these are long outdated and refuted/ re-worked ever since." Thank you for replying Pica. It is quite ironic that you accuse me of not reading through sources thoroughly, funny enough you are following my steps by (Quote:)"There's another edit further down that I haven't looked at". But lets head back to my sources: The chart in Wheelers theory DOES differentiate clearly between the Quranic narrative on the one hand and the Quranic COMMENTARIES on the other. On p 214 Wheeler states: "Q 18:60-82 is not necessarily derived from the Alexander stories. On the contrary, a more discerning examination of the different texts show that the later recensions of the Alexander stories are dependent upon the Qur'an as understood through the medium of early Muslim commentators. Key elements of the later stories, such as the appellation of "Dhu al-Qarnayn" attributed to Alexander owe their origins to the commentaries. A closer analysis of the commentaries on Q 18:60-82 shows the development of an increased association of Q 18:60-82 and 83-102 with Alexander stories. This recognition makes it possible to obtain a fresh understanding of the reconstruction of the history of the later recensions of the Alexander stories" And clearly, again(3rd time je sais), he differs between both, the commentary and the quranic narrative. One more thing to Gerö: If his conclusion is that Q83-101 are from the Alexander legend, but he expresses the existing discrepancies because the manuscripts according to Gerö himself "also do(es) not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran" then why can't we quote this? Shouldn't this be mentioned?Mikka85 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before under your other two user-names, and I don't see it advancing anywhere. I'll put in a request for RfC. (I indented your edit above to make this thread easier to follow).PiCo (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

My friend really, this is my only account, how many times should I repeat that. I don't know why someone would accuse me of such thing as this would be nonsense per definition. I joined the english Wiki just recently from the german Wiki. Just please you as an admin/mod(?), track/look at my IP and my initial editings, heck look at my e-mail adress (wait, do you give your e-mail to verify?). Anyways, you will then notice that I'm german, there shouldn't be many germans running around in the english Wiki pissing off others, non? Compare all of this to whoever you think I supposedly should be. Theres no reason for me to waste time with this, when I can have a reasonable discussion with 1 account. Yes the discussion was heated but in the end we calmed down and you even put edit in a request section, which is a great start. I'm hoping that you don't forget my editations. And thank you, I mean it. Mikka85 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Included indentation. AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also argue that Gero's comments should be included, it can simply be pointed out that although Gero accepts the overall theory, he also finds problems with the evidences used for that theory. Furthermore, I also believe that a justified reason for exclusion of Wheeler's work has not been provided. Unless someone wants to discuss this, I plan to re-include those portions. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC

There is no consensus in this RfC.

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lede contain a statement that Alexander the Great features in the Quran as dhul-Qarnayn and that he entered it through various legends current in the Middle East? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC). PiCo (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Uhm just quick: I really don't know what this is about. I started the discussion (which was about Gerö and Wheeler) because I wanted them both mentioned as sources in the wiki article, plus the sources for the Khidr-narrative. Nothing else. --Mikka85 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The first part of the question is related to the title. However, it'd better be stated as "Alexander the Great is allegedly featured in the Quran as Dhul-Qarnayn", because the direct connection between these two names is still debatable. The second part of the question should not be stated definitively, because there is no certain direct connection between the legends and the Quran (which is believed by Moslems only came through Muhammad), so words such as "hypothesized" or "purported" should be included. JohnThorne (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• No (to Q1) – or at least, not in the way this confusingly worded Rfc has it. It appears that this entire article is about a legend, and so an unqualified statement that "Alexander the Great features in the Quran" in Wikipedia's voice can not be supported under our Verifiability policy. The lead sentence of the article in its current wording (as of rev 898498796) is a violation of Wikipedia's standards. (This also means that the title of this article is incorrect per WP:AT and requires a change, but that is a separate issue which should be brought up in a separate discussion.)
  Decline to vote (on Q2) – Q2 of the Rfc is dependent on Q1 and presupposes that Q1 is true and not a POVFORK, and thus indicates a malformed Rfc question. It should not be addressed until after the issue with Q1 is resolved. Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Listed at: WT:Folklore, WT:ANEGY, WT:WikiProject Ancient Near East, WT:CGR, WT:HISTORY, WT:ISLAM. Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging involved editors to this Rfc over 4% in stats who are not already participating:
  • @Wiqi55, Semaphoris, PaleoNeonate, Aldux, Thomas Arelatensis, Gamma737, and Mikka85:
  • article editors not already noted: @Irishpunktom:
  • main article editors: @Zeno of Elea, Doug Weller, Mazdakabedi, and Farhansher:
  • Not notified: two anon accounts (99.242.17.45 and 99.179.1.230) who are SPAs with no edits since 2010.
  • Please also see #Disputed title discussion below. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

See related issue at #Disputed title below. The Rfc can be decided independent of that, but users arriving here from WikiProjects are invited to participate below as well: in a way, the Rfc question is merely a subset of (or obviated by) the RM/Merge issue discussed below. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed title

The title of the article should be changed, or this article should be merged into Dhul-Qarnayn.

The current title, Alexander the Great in the Quran, implies by its wording in Wikipedia's voice that the two are linked, i.e., that Alexander the Great is in the Quran. However, this is a disputed theory without universal agreement, and thus is a NPOV violation. A more neutral descriptive title should be found that complies with article title policy. Something along the lines of, Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran, Debate about Alexander the Great in the Quran, or the Legend of Alexander the Great in the Quran.

The current title, and all the alternatives, refer to a theory about the identity of the person named in the Quran as "Dhul-Qarnayn". The article Dhul-Qarnayn is only 20kb, so perhaps another approach is simply to merge the two articles. Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think merging this article with Dhul-Qarnayn is the best solution. I don't even know why this article has been created. It was apparently already contentious in 2005. T8612 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A clue to the present title, or what some editors view as the scope of this article may be found in the following statement (diff) in this discussion, which says,

The article is titled Alexander the Great in the Quran. It should be about the reasons that led scholars to identify AG with certain passages in the Quran. It is not about why these ideas are totally mistaken.

While it's fine to have an article about a theory, generally arguments on both sides of the theory should be presented in the same article, to maintain a neutral point of view. This article appears to be basically a POVFORK of the main one. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am agreed that there is no need for Alexander the Great in the Quran. The material on that topic makes more sense folded into the Dhul-Qarnayn article (although, I think there is some exaggeration in this discussion about the degree to which the identification of Alexander with Dhul-Qarnayn is disputed - it has generally been accepted by modern scholars and Muslims).

However, the material in the section on Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great isn't actually about "Alexander the Great in the Quran." It might be folded into an article on the Alexander Romance or Depictions of Alexander the Great, or (my preferred option) made a standalone article Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great (with a paragraph at the start explaining the Dhul-Qarayn situation in miniature and directing readers to Dhul-Qarayn as the {{main article}} on that topic. Furius (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know enough about the scholarship on Dhul-Qarnayn to take a position on the merge proposal, but I agree that Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great should be a standalone article as Furius suggests. A. Parrot (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. It may be worth mentioning that Brill's 2nd edition of the Enclyclopaedia Islamica (paywall of course) has a six-word entry for "D̲h̲u ’l-Ḳarnayn". Six words is below the paywall, so we can see it all: "D̲h̲u ’l-Ḳarnayn: [see ISKANDAR ]". That was surely a sensible editorial choice for them. Legendary figures often draw in aspects of more than one historical personage, but the massive consensus that Dhul-Qarnayn equals a legendary Alexander should be reflected in our article, whatever title we choose. Andrew Dalby 09:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Dhul-Qarnayn because it is more neutral and does not assume any position on the hypothesis. I also agree with Furius's suggestion about splitting the Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (via FRS above) to Dhul-Qarnayn with some discussion of the various theories. Additionally, split the section on Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great into its own article. The current article seems to have a non-neutral POV. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Dhul-Qarnayn. That said, after perusing the article mentioned by Andrew Dalby concerning the Encyclopaedia of Islam it is paramount to avoid giving undue weight to rival theories since the EoI is pretty straightforward: "It is generally agreed both by Muslim commentators and modern occidental scholars that Dhu'l Karnayn, "the two-horned", in Sura XVIII, 83/82-98 is to be identified with Alexander the Great."Aldux (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – What I'm seeing here, is a consensus to merge to Dhul-Qarnayn, while reserving certain sections, notably Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great, into an article, likely its own (new) article. Although this wasn't organized as an Rfc, I believe it can be semiformally closed with an outside assessment anyway, the way an Rfc is. I can't do it, since I'm involved, but I'll list this somewhere so we can request it be done. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Actually now that I think about it, I wonder if one can simply ask a trusted editor to assess and close a discussion? I've observed closes by an editor who I think does a very good job at assessing Rfcs, even difficult ones, and in reporting results. User:StraussInTheHouse, would you be willing to have a look at this non-Rfc discusson, and give your independent opinion, and close it with an assessment of whether there's consensus, and if so, what it is? (Note: there was a related Rfc in Archive 2 that fizzled.) If you're busy or don't wish to, please ping here so I can post somewhere to request a closer (suggestions where to post?). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about splitting the article to Islamic depictions of the Quran, couldn't it fit in Alexander Romance or Dhul-Qarnayn? These articles aren't that big. T8612 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)   moved to fix broken reply threading here; by Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it could go into either, but there is nothing wrong with a small article and I'm sure there is more than is said here that could be said on the topic. Furius (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the idea that Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great is NOT disputed by majority of scholars. Only Muslim fundamentalists continue to dispute this. We cannot give preferential treatment to Islamic articles. The article on the Book of Daniel CLEARLY says that it is a 2nd century BC work, even though Christian fundamentalists still dispute this. I COMPLETELY disagree with saying that this just one theory, when almost all critical, neutral scholars and early Muslims scholars are completely and UTTERLY unanimous in identifying Alexander the Great with Dhul Qarnayn. This is not any more disputed than the fact that Daniel is dated to 2nd century BC. --76.64.129.247 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect – I think the most appropriate option would be to move most of the content to something like "Alexander the Great depiction in Abrahmic religions". This, because a lot of the alleged similarities are common among the Abrahmic religions with related sources arguably borrowing from each other. The uniqueness of Islam in this context does not appear to be significant enough to warrant a separate article.

• Move to Dhul-Qarnayn - Against this, because even if classical commentators generally agreed, modern scholarship often outrightly rejects the comparison. Moving Alexander the Great in the Quran to Dhul-Qarnayn would imply ignorance of the opinion difference. Moreover, if Alexander theory is moved, for balance purposes, Cyrus the Great in the Quran will have to be merged there too.

Visitors looking up the name Dhul-Qarnayn are likely to be much more interested in how the source of the character i.e. the Qur'an describes it. The theories would be of a secondary nature. The large size of the Alexander theory will overshadow everything else, even the statements of the Qur'an which, in this context, is the only non-difference-of-opinion material. Moreover, having a section heavily cited with Jewish and Christian quotations appears to be out of place for a Qur'an-centered article. A better option is to have short introductory paragraphs for both theories in Dhul-Qarnayn with further reading links to the detailed content.

• Change title to Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran - Not too important, because then Cyrus the Great in the Quran will also have to be renamed. Summary description mentioning the theoretical nature of the idea/title in the introductory paragraphs appears to be sufficient.
• Move section #Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great - As suggested, better option is to move to Alexander Romance, the material appears irrelevant here. Also, I don't think the content is large enough to require a separate standalone article yet. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Opinions of "tiny minorities"

This is in reference to my edits that were reversed recently on the article, I made a detailed comment on the reverting user's talk page, however, over 2 days have passed without any response. Therefore, I'm re-including the comment with minor changes here:

Regarding your reverts, I had included references from the exegeses of:

• Syed Abul Ala Maududi
• Mufti Muhammad Shafi
• Amin Ahsan Islahi

Since you've chosen to completely remove the information instead of increasing/decreasing the weightage, then according to WP:UNDUE, you must believe that these people represent "the views of tiny minorities". If so, are you serious? With all due respect, do you even know what you're talking about here?

And you wrote, "sources of doubtful reliability"; again, seriously? Either, I'm severely misunderstanding what you're saying, or you really have no familiarity with the topic at hand. So, the works of some of the most prominent modern Muslim scholarship count as "sources of doubtful reliability" in your book? I would strongly suggest that you, at the very least, read through their biography pages just on Wikipedia, before making such simplistic assertions.

More Muslims would have in-depth familiarity with the works and name of Maududi instead of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. He is probably the most well-known scholar, regarded as even a household name by many, in the second most populous Muslim country. His succinct description of the scholarship on the matter appears to be extremely accurate:

"... in general the commentators have been of the opinion that he was Alexander the Great but the characteristics of Zul-Qarnain described in the Qur'an are not applicable to him. However, now the commentators are inclined to believe that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus, an ancient king of Iran."

Additional prominent exegeses authors who hold similar opinions are:

* Sayyid Qutb

* Abul Kalam Azad

* Naser Makarem Shirazi (Shia Grand Ayatollah) (Azad's opinion is referenced in his exegesis)

* Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

* Israr Ahmed

* Muhammad Asad

* Muhammad Ali (Ahmadi)

* Muhammad Ashiq Ilahi

* Basheer Ahmad Mohyidin

* Shams Pirzada (referenced Azad's opinion)

Together these people make a following of probably literally hundreds of millions of, if not over a billion, Muslims. And you consider that "the views of tiny minorities"? I'm pretty sure the works of these people are read by a much more significant population of the Muslim world, compared to the Encyclopaedia of Islam - and that too by Brill, with all due respect to them, whom, as far as I can remember, I'm hearing about for the first time.

It might not be relevant to Wikipedia, but the fact is, any Muslim commentator worth their salt, who comes across the historical understanding that Alexander was a polytheist, which most modern exegeses authors do, would almost never accept the Alexander theory. This idea completely obliterates the possibility of Alexander being a potential candidate for this Qur'anic figure. It is unbelievable that a theory which appears to have been so widely discredited by modern scholarship is accepted 100% uncritically on Wikipedia.

Even worse, the same introductory paragraph includes at the end, the statement "[t]he legend went through much further elaboration in subsequent centuries before eventually finding its way into the Quran through a Syrian version" - one doesn't even need a basic understanding of the religion to know that this statement clearly says that Islam is fabricated and just made-up. But somehow this uncritically accepted content is unchallenged NPOV? It should also be pointed out that the Cyrus the Great in the Quran theory is apparently notable enough to have its own article, but almost never mentioned in the Alexander article. Even though the Cyrus article was balanced enough to point to the Alexander opinion in its very first introductory paragraph.

Kindly, inform me exactly how many more modern era exegeses will I have to cite for you to dare rethink your simplistic "views of tiny minorities" and "sources of doubtful reliability" conclusion?

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at previous revisions of the article, it would appear that an, above mentioned, older version of the introductory paragraphs was much more balanced and NPOV. However, later edits made at least that portion of the article blatantly POV leading to the idea that this article is a POVFORK, as mentioned by User:Mathglot. Furthermore, at least two attempts in the last few months to include some balance to the introductory paragraph, like mentioned above by User:JohnThorne and User:Mathglot, have been met with summary reversions.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Refactored for indentation per WP:THREAD. Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadF.Cheema:, thanks for the ping. I guess I did claim it might be a POVFORK; I was persuaded it wasn't for POV reasons by other editors, but it's still an unnecessary split, in my view.

Also, without commenting directly on the content dispute in question here, I'd just like to add that a concise description of your differences may be more effective; see WP:WALLOFTEXT. Also, in your comments and replies here (and on all article and user talk pages) please observe the indentation conventions described at WP:THREAD. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In case I'm misunderstood, I didn't say that it was a POVFORK, I said the introductory paragraphs lead to the idea that it is. Do you now believe that those paragraphs are balanced and NPOV is maintained in the article, especially compared to its older revision?

Regarding length, as mentioned above I was trying to reproduce the original comment on the reverting user's talk page, without much changes. Might be too long for this place, but I don't believe it is for the specific user's talk page. Also, if a user isn't bothered enough to even read all the relevant arguments, should they get to decide which direction the article takes? Additionally, it appears to me quite clearly, that a strong POV is being forced in the starting paragraphs and obviously no one here is motivated enough to fix that. I'd rather conclude the discussion, instead of leaving it in limbo and completely accepting strongly POV phrasing for the article, as others appear to have done. Indentation wasn't used since all of it was the first comment; the included indentation now makes that first comment appear as three separate ones.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been quite persuasive to me. An adjustment to the article to reflect the arguments of these scholars as well as the those that the article currently cites, seems desirable. Technically, that's a separate issue from the discussion above about merging this article into others, but they are clearly related, so do you have any opinions, AhmadF.Cheema, on how we should proceed on that score? Furius (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

With reference to the anonymous 9th July edit: Reverted.

Editor's summary was: This older lead has better sources and represents the scholarly consensus — The "new" lede didn't remove any of the sources, in fact the anonymous user actually removed one of those "better sources". Furthermore, how can an apparently non-Muslim source be considered "better" if its representation of Muslim opinion contradicts what Muslim scholars have themselves opined in their books? "Scholarly consensus" cannot be claimed when major contradicting scholarly opinion has clearly been cited. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

For convenience I'll indent this.
Sourcing: One source I've deleted is simply "EI 2". If you want to put a source template in this format in the article (it's called sfn, meaning short foot note), you have to spell it out. It took me a while to realise you were talking about the online Enclyclopedia of Islam. If you want to source that you need to use the websource form instead of the sfn format. However, it's not really relevant, as an online encylcopedia isn't a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia - you need to use books and articles by recognised scholars. And as I said, use the sfn format, linked to an entry in the Bibliography section.
Consensus: By this I mean that we need to reflect scholarly consensus. The first line of the lead runs: "Western scholars and Muslim commentators generally agree that Alexander the Great is featured in the Quran as Dhul-Qarnayn..." That's sourced to Stoneman, who meets the "reliable source" criteria. Given that the consensus is that Dhul Qarnayn is ALexander, anything to the contrary is undue weight, reflecting a minority viewpoint.
Misrepresentation of sources: You want to amend the lead to read that DQ "may be a reference" to Alexander. As above, the source says no such thing.
Use of quality sources: In Wikipedia we always use quality sources. In academic subjects such as this, that means academic sources. The sources you want to use - Maududi and such - are not quality sources. They represent a very back-ward-looking traditional Islamic version of scholarship that simply isn't accepted by modern Western scholarship. Dispute resolution: I suspect that you aren't going to accept what I've said. To cut matters short, I suggest we take this immediately to dispute resolution. That isn't necessarily a hostile process (in fact the reason I'm suggesting this now is to prevent hostility from arising) and can clear the air. I'll even get myself a nick to the interim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.77.89 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I see you're continuing with unilateral reversions without getting your understading accepted on the talk page.

• I didn't include "EI 2", I only mentioned it because you claimed that "older lead has better sources" and this is one of those sources. If you want to exclude this, sure go ahead, that reference actually supported your position.
• If at least about a dozen Muslim scholars are contradicting Stoneman's assertion, then it obviously means the author is wrong or at the very least is representing outdated information. Muslim scholars obviously do not accept the claim that is being forced on them. And again with the "minority viewpoint" claim? As I have exhaustively argued above, about a dozen modern Muslim scholars representing a following of hundreds of millions of Muslims don't agree - does that count as "minorities"?
• The sources you want to use - Maududi and such - are not quality sources. They represent a very back-ward-looking traditional Islamic version of scholarship that simply isn't accepted by modern Western scholarship. — I don't even know what to say to this. This appears to be cherry-picking at its best. Apparently, widely published and read Muslim scholarship is not a quality source. Older Muslim scholarship which kind of went along with Western conclusions was fine but modern Muslim scholarship which goes against it, is "back-ward-looking traditional". Immensely convenient!

Why exactly is a Western scholar's assertion regarding Muslim scholarship more reliable than an actual Muslim scholar's? And not just less reliable but bad enough to be completely removed from the article?

• Furthermore, as far as I understand, it is irrelevant whether Western scholarship accepts them or not, as long as the idea is accepted by a significant number of Muslim scholars, it is therefore relevant and has to be represented. The article is titled "Alexander the Great in the Quran" not, "Alexander the Great in the Quran specifically according to Western scholarship".
• Moreover, incidentally, even Western scholarship disagrees on the issue, especially Brannon Wheeler as mentioned in this and this edit and more detailed at, Is the source of Qur'an 18:60-65 the Alexander Romances? at Islamic-awareness.org.

If you're not going to refute the above points, then sure, take the matter to dispute resolution. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I won't go through all those points, but just to mention a few of the more important ones:

No, religious "scholarship" is not scholarship as Wikipedia accepts the term - we don't take God-inspired scripture as authoritative. That applies whether the religion be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or whatever. (Hindu scholarship will tell you that the world is flat, but we don't give it equal space with modern geography, not even if there are a billion Hindus in India).

Brannon Wheeler does not say that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus - in fact he says explicitly that the majority of scholars agree that he's Alexander.

Anyway, I'll take this to 3O. I'm a bit busy right now but I'll get back to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.77.89 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)